FirstNet’s latest legal interpretations make opt-out alternative less appealing to states, territories

What is the risk for an opt-out state? The biggest factor is how much it costs a state or territory to build out, maintain and upgrade the network in its jurisdiction.

The good news for states is that initial deployment figures should be fairly well known by the time governors make their decisions—after all, both FirstNet and any opt-out state will have done extensive research into this area. In addition, LTE technology is mature enough that estimating normal maintenance costs can be done with decent accuracy.

The bad news for states is that no one has any idea how much it will cost to upgrade the network or when upgrades will happen. What we do know is that opt-out states will have to adhere to all of FirstNet’s network policies, no matter how often or when they may be altered.

“Our network policies are something that are going to be deployed on an ongoing basis—they’re going to change, they’re going to be variable for a long period of time, and they’re critical,” Karp said. “We preliminarily concluded in the original notice and confirm that our network policies have to apply across the board, whether a state assumes that responsibility or whether it’s FirstNet responsibility. And that’s key.

“That’s key for interoperability, to ensure that we have one nationwide network, no matter who is responsible for the deployment of pieces of it. [It’s key to ensure] that public safety, when they cross state boundaries, are getting the exact same user experience in State A as they are in State B, because we know public-safety incidents don’t stop at the state border.”

In other words, governors will not know what the ongoing costs will be, if they choose the opt-out alternative. For a governor making an opt-out decision, the obligation to remain in sync with FirstNet’s technical policies could be problematic.

What if FirstNet calls for an upgrade to the latest LTE revision—or 5G, which is expected to be deployed by carriers in less than 10 years—at the same time that the state’s economy has taken a massive hit because of problems in a key industry sector? Under the legal interpretations, the state would have to find the money somewhere and pay for the upgrade within its borders. Imagine the uproar that would ensue if a jurisdiction had to lay off state-police personnel to fund an upgrade to an LTE network that troopers were expected to use.

So, the bottom line is that FirstNet’s final legal interpretations severely limit an opt-out state’s potential reward for building and maintaining its own RAN, but the risks are significant. To some extent, an opt-out state would be writing a blank check, with FirstNet’s network policies—something the state would not control—dictating the dollar amount and when additional payments would be made.

In addition, an opt-out state would need to have the necessary governance and support infrastructure to administer the oversight of its RAN, which will require extra financial and personnel resources that many states lack.